"Dave Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 008c01c2ce1f$87ca8620$6501a8c0@penguin">news:008c01c2ce1f$87ca8620$6501a8c0@penguin... > On Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:13 PM [GMT+1=CET], > David B. Held <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > b1m57m$702$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1m57m$702$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > [...] > > > > > I mean, the optimally_inherit eliminates the empty bases, and > > > > > yet there is size bloat. So VC++ makes the class bigger for > > > > > some other reason than that it has empty bases. I will try to > > > > > write some tests to see why that is, or at least how. > > > > > > > > I repeat, I bet it's MI-related. > > > > > > The proof of the pudding is in the eating. > > > > I got a chance to taste the pudding, the the results are inconclusive. > > The cause of the size bloat was that I had changed ref_counted to > > inherit from noncopyable. Seems like an innocent enough change. > > Seems that for the single-inheritance case, we should see some > > EBO action, right? Well, we do, unless ref_counted is a base in > > an MI hierarchy. Why its place in an hierarchy should change its > > size is a mystery to me, > > What do you mean that its *place* in the hierarchy affects the size? If it's > in the hierarchy, it's a base. > I bet this is the effect he observed: http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg43187.php
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
